It's called el niño/la niña; look at long term graph for a change. 1998 talking point slammed almost as many times as this pseudoscience blather is brought up.

And same thing goes for every single attempt at cohesive argument from deniers. Slammed into trance like levels of patterns to no avail. You are ridiculous. The end.

This has got to be the stupidest arguement ever... you're all a real bright bunch.

I'm glad someone agrees with me.

It's important, but it's supposed to be a scientific discussion, not a political arguement.

You all sound like a bunch of Americans. I hope you're not.

Sorry, but that is America. I am Americanized and I am totally aware of the issue being turned political. It won't stop being so if you want to stick to the science. The science is as settled as evolution vs creationism, the politics never will be, hence the pseudoscience that's paraded around.

So the choice is simple. Do you recite scientific essays as it all gets whitewashed and dismissed by political buzzwordage and pseudoscientific babble, or do you simply tell the clowns to shove it? Either way, you got nowhere in your noble pursuits.

This sentence here just proves you don't have a scientific approach to either of these issues at hand... Most scientific minds that have anything convincing or concrete to say about evolution don't look at it being Evolution vs Creationism! I'm afraid you're the one with the "pseudo-science" :cool:

What you said isn't a "scientific approach" in itself, either. It's just irrelevant. I never said that evolution vs creationism defined evolution. You pulled it out of thin air. I said the debate of scientific importance between evolution and creationism was settled; evolution in that context. The point was that the details of evolution can be debated, but not how relevant a challenge is the total refutation of it in the form of creationism. Similar to empirical process of greenhouse effect related to emissions vs "no, blogs say otherwise" aka, sun, mist, volcanoes did it, aka my tin foil cap will protect me from algore propaganda, etc etc etc. Creationists try the exact same basic tactic to attack evolution by citing biased pseudoscientists, incomplete data (such as the 10 year climate graph), or just plain lies.

So, you, sir/madam can begin the "scientific approach" here whenever you desire. Because I'm afraid a few dismissive lines doesn't cut it.

How the hell can what I say be "scientific approach" when I didn't argue about anything scientific?:confused: I'm not gonna apply the scientific method for anything other than Science when I talk on here! The whole point of a forum is opinions, not scientific method!

My point was this; you believe that Evolution and Global warming could be labelled as scientific laws tomorrow and you wouldn't have anything against it. The reason you believe this is because you assume and blindly believe that any arguments against Evolution, are from creationists, and any arguments against Global Warming are Al Gore propaganda conspiracy theorists... in short, you believe that anyone arguing against either of these are "pseudo-scientists".

The simple fact is though, anyone that talks about evolution as though it was fact, simply doesn't know the science behind it. And anyone talking about Global Warming with 100% certainty that it's man-made, simply doesn't even bother to listen to the facts and doesn't even question the history of this planet... so basically, these people are as close minded as those "religious nuts" that these people seem to argue with and make fun of all the time!